Editorial commentary dressed up as investigative journalism

Monster News · 3 November 2026

Carmi Timez v. Monster News Showdown · Monster News · Spotlight

They post the outrage. We ask for the paperwork: which requests went to an outside lawyer, who approved it, and what it cost you.

Carmi Timez took a swing at Monster News over a story we posted in their group. That’s their deal, we guess. They run a Facebook group, they pile on, and they call it news. Boil today’s post down and you get editorial commentary. In street terms, that’s running your mouth.

And while Carmi Timez is out there moving the needle with hard-hitting work like “the money should have gone to the sewers,” Monster News is asking the question that can actually be answered: is what the city is doing legal?

Here is how we intend to find out.

What we asked for

We filed a FOIA request with the City of Carmi for the paper trail behind these legal bills: which requests went to Lashly & Baer or another outside firm and which got handled in house, who made or approved each referral and what reason was written down, the referral policy if one exists, the invoices and billing entries, the communications around those referrals, and the records showing who authorized outside counsel in the first place. Existing records only. We aren’t asking the city to build us a spreadsheet.

• The request: Illinois FOIA Request – Outside Counsel Referrals, FOIA Processing Practices, and Legal Expenses (PDF)

The real question: does criticizing the city get you a lawyer?

Carmi has residents who have spent years fighting City Hall in public. Kathy Sands. Rudy Rudolph. Uncle Bob, and the neighbors who file alongside them. Carmi also has supportive residents who show up to support the council, drink their koolaid,  and never cause officials a headache.

The test is simple. If the first group’s records requests get routed to Lashly & Baer and billed by the hour, while the second group’s get answered by the clerk in a week, that is not a paperwork problem. That is a two-track system, and the track you land on depends on who you are. So the real question is, how does the city FOIA Officer determine what justifies outsource work to a bespoke lawfirm with Gucci prices?

We don’t know yet how this is happening. We do know city hall does answer some themselves though. That’s the point of asking. But it is the pattern the records will either show or rule out.

Why that would be illegal

Illinois FOIA doesn’t let a public body decide who deserves an answer. Records are presumed open, and the burden sits on the city to prove an exemption by clear and convincing evidence. 5 ILCS 140/1; 5 ILCS 140/1.2. The city has to designate a FOIA officer and train that person for the job, 5 ILCS 140/3.5, and a requester can take the city to court to enforce it, with attorney fees and civil penalties on the table, 5 ILCS 140/11.

Then there is the constitutional layer. Government cannot pile extra cost or delay onto someone’s access to public records because that person criticizes the officials. Doing that is viewpoint discrimination, and the Supreme Court has treated it as a First Amendment problem for decades. Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972); O’Hare Truck Service v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996). Proving it takes evidence connecting the criticism to the burden: timing, comparators, who signed what, who paid. Mt. Healthy v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977). And “I feel picked on” is not enough by itself. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972). That is exactly why we are asking for documents instead of trading vibes.

The legal term for what that pattern produces is a chilling effect: a burden heavy enough that people stop asking. In street terms, you make the price of a question high enough and the questions stop. That is the theory. The invoices are how you test it.

What the records will tell us

There are three ways this comes out. One: the referrals were routine and defensible, and we will print that. Two: the process is sloppy, nobody is tracking who gets sent where or why, and the fix is written standards and training instead of another invoice. Three: the referrals track the requester, critics get the law firm, supporters get an answer, and this was never about records at all.

The FOIA request is what tells us which one we are looking at. No guessing required.

This is what the road to accountability looks like

If it is the third one, this stops being an argument about an invoice. A resident who got singled out can file suit, ask a court to enjoin the practice, and with the right record, win. That is not us promising an outcome. It is what the statute and the case law already provide for. 5 ILCS 140/11; 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

That is the difference between us and a Facebook post. They ran their mouth. We are going to the courthouse with paper. Monster News will track this story and do the reporting that matters, from the trenches.

We are all on the same side here. We should not be taking swings at each other. But you do you, boo.

Monster News condemns any attempt by public officials to turn the cost of public accountability back against the very people seeking it. There is something profoundly backwards about a government that answers questions about its own practices by suggesting that the people asking those questions are the ones draining the public treasury.

Citizens should never be forced into an impossible choice:

Ask questions and be accused of bankrupting their city, or remain silent while the old habits of the old guard carry on behind closed doors. That is not responsible government. That is a warning dressed up as a bill. The right to question those entrusted with public office is not an expense to be resented, a nuisance to be punished, or a privilege reserved for those who know when to keep quiet. It is the price of living in a democracy. And if the cost of answering the public’s questions has become burdensome, perhaps the first question should not be why the citizens are asking, but why their government has made honest answers so expensive.

Sources

• Illinois Freedom of Information Act: 5 ILCS 140/1, 140/1.2, 140/3.5, 140/11.
• Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).
• O’Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake, 518 U.S. 712 (1996).
• Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
• Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972).
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — civil action for deprivation of rights.
• Carmi Timez, November 2, 2026 post on the council meeting and the $21,531.50 Lashly & Baer invoice.